DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 objected to because of the following informalities:
A) In Claim 1, last line, “side .” should read “side.”
B) Claim 5 is missing a period
C) In Claim 7, “2 , wherein” should read “2, wherein”
D) In Claim 8, “2 7,” should read “2”
E) Claims 2-4, 6 & 9-14 are also objected to due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-15 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 11,993,132 B2 to Pacilli in view of US Patent Publication Number 2022/0032830 A1 to Henn.
A) As per Claims 1, 15 & 18, Pacilli teaches an arrangement (Pacilli: Figure 11) comprising:
an upholstery structure (Pacilli: seat; Col. 5, lines 30-35);
a thermoelectric device including a device housing associated with the upholstery structure, the thermoelectric device comprising a cold side and a warm side with heat exchange surfaces facing opposite directions; a Peltier element connecting the heat exchange surfaces (Pacilli: Figure 11, Item 620);
a fan including a fan housing associated with the upholstery structure (Pacilli: Col. 5, lines 39-42, best shown in Figure 8);
a connecting element fluidly connecting the fan with the thermoelectric device, wherein the connecting element comprises a cavity (Pacilli: best shown at Item 410 in Figure 8, though present in Figure 11 with not shown fan); and
at least one baffle adjusting air distribution through the cold side and the warm side with the at least one baffle (Pacilli: Figure 11, Items 644 & 646).
Pacilli does not teach adjusting the air distribution in accordance with a weight acting on the upholstery structure.
However, Henn teaches adjusting temperature of the seat in accordance with a weight acting on the upholstery structure (Henn: Figure 3, Item 44; Paragraph 0018).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Pacilli by adding a weight sensor, as taught by Henn, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pacilli with these aforementioned teachings of Henn with the motivation of only providing temperature/airflow control when an occupant is present in the seat, thereby saving energy.
B) As per Claim 2, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches that the thermoelectric device includes a housing, and wherein the air distribution is adjustable with at least one dimensionally stable air baffle extending beyond an outer circumference of the housing into the cavity formed by the connecting element (Pacilli: Figure 11, Item 644 extends beyond wall of 610 into connection element with fan shown in Figure 8).
C) As per Claim 3, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the at least one dimensionally stable air baffle extends horizontally into the cavity formed by the connecting element.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having the baffle extend into the cavity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that baffle extending into the connection piece would perform equally well with Pacilli in view of Henn. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the baffle of Pacilli in view of Henn extend into the connection piece because the relative positions of the baffle and connection piece does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
D) As per Claim 4, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches that the at least one dimensionally stable air baffle comprises a single piece with the housing (Pacilli: Figure 11, Item 646).
E) As per Claim 5, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches that the at least one dimensionally stable air baffle is fastened on the housing via a frame (Pacilli: Col. 12, lines 31-33).
F) As per Claim 6, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches that the Peltier element includes the at least one dimensionally stable air baffle (Pacilli: Figure 11, Item 646 can be said to be part of Item 120).
G) As per Claim 7, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches that the at least one dimensionally stable air baffle is arranged on the Peltier element (Pacilli: Figure 11, Item 646).
H) As per Claim 12, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches that the connecting element is detachably fastened on a housing of the thermoelectric device (Pacilli: best shown in Figure 8).
I) As per Claim 13, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches that the fan includes a fan housing, and wherein the connecting element is detachably fastened to the fan housing (Pacilli: best shown in Figure 8 at Item 410).
J) As per Claim 14, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches that at least one of the thermoelectric device and the fan is pivotably mounted on the upholstery support structure (Pacilli: Figure 8, fan rotates around to move airflow).
Claim(s) 9-11 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacilli in view of Henn as applied to claims 1 or 15 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2016/0250905 A1 to Tanaka.
A) As per Claims 9-11 & 16, Pacilli in view of Henn teaches all the limitations except that the connecting element is elastically, reversibly deformable as a function of the weight, comprising bellows.
However, Tanaka teaches a connecting element is elastically, reversibly deformable as a function of the weight, comprising bellows (Tanaka: Paragraph 0117).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Pacilli in view of Henn by having a bellows connection between the two pieces, as taught by Tanaka, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pacilli in view of Henn with these aforementioned teachings of Tanaka with the motivation of providing a connection that can move with the seat, so as to not break or leak airflow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17 & 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762